TEN STRATEGIES

FOR CLIMATE
RESILIENCE
IN THE COLORADO
RIVER BASIN
 This report was authored by Martin & McCoy and Culp &
Kelly, LLP, on behalf of American Rivers, Environmental
Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, The Nature
Conservancy, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P ­ artnership,
Trout Unlimited, and the Western Resource Advocates.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the extremely helpful
information and input from these organizations in developing
and preparing this report. All opinions and errors are the
responsibility of the authors.

Artwork: 100 Storms Creative / 

Tommy Greyeyes
Design: Monograph / Matt Avery Access the full report at: www.tenstrategies.net
TABLE OF

CONTENTS
Executive Summary  4
1.0 Purpose and Context  6
2.0 Resilience Questions  8
3.0 Climate and Economic Risk  10
3.1 Climate Change in the Colorado River Basin  12
3.2 Climate Driven Impacts on Colorado River Basin
Water Supply  15
3.3 Climate Change Mitigation  17
3.4 Economic & Social Risks and Resilience  18
4.0 Overview of Investment Strategies  19
4.1 Forest Management & Restoration  22
4.2 Natural Distributed Storage  24
4.3 Regenerative Agriculture  26
4.4 Upgrading Agricultural Infrastructure &
Operations  28
4.5 Cropping Alternatives & New Market
Pathways  30
4.6 Urban Conservation & Re-Use  32
4.7 Industrial Conservation & Re-Use  34
4.8 Coal Plant Retirement Water  36
4.9 Reducing Dust on Snow  38
4.10 Covering Reservoirs & Canals  40
5.0 Summary of Financing Opportunities  42
6.0 Concluding Insights and Next Steps  44
Citations  47
Notes  50

Across the world, water users and
managers, scientists, local commu-
nities, entrepreneurial innovators,
and non-governmental organizations
are looking for ways to increase
the long-term resilience and health
of river basins that supply critical
water needs for humans, agriculture,
industry and the environment. These
efforts are driven by many factors,
including the need to reverse historic
degradation, improve watershed
health and reduce hydrologic vulner-
ability to climate change.
Positioned along the spine of the
Rocky Mountains, across the Colo-
rado Plateau, and within the Sonoran
and Mojave Deserts, the Colorado
River Basin is uniquely vulnerable
to a wide range of hydrological,
ecological, social, and economic
impacts from climate change. These
impacts directly affect the reliability
and durability of water supplies that
support cities, agriculture operations,
tribal communities, forests, rivers,
groundwater tables, and numerous
other human and natural systems.
4
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Traditionally, well-tested and
widely implemented water conser-
vation efforts have largely been
carried out in the periphery of
Colorado River management efforts,
like the development of the 2007
Interim Guidelines, the Drought
Contingency Plans and various
state water planning efforts that
focus on traditional demand/supply
analyses and water management
solutions. While these efforts are
essential, they are developed and
implemented with a focus on the
management, movement, and use of
water and therefore do not typically
or sufficiently include or consider
broader economic, environmental,
and social risks from changing
climate dynamics. By focusing
solely on managing water supply
and demands within the context
of drought and climate change,
there may be missed opportunities
to explore multi-­faceted strategies
that could adapt to, respond to, and
mitigate the steady, compounding,
and extreme risks of climate change
to economies, communities, land-
scapes, and water resources.
This report seeks to bring to light
the potential for investigating,
testing, and scaling-up ten invest-
ment strategies aimed at preparing
the Basin for long-term rising
temperatures, high variability in
precipitation patterns, and increased
drying, all of which are projected to
occur even if efforts to limit climate
change are taken seriously over the
next few decades. The strategies
range from well-demonstrated, to
emerging, to theoretical but largely
untested concepts. By presenting
an integrated exploration of these
­strategies, this report aims to move
the conversation from a focus on
water management to a focus on
climate resilience to increase the
Basin’s capacity to adapt to climate
change while also protecting water
supplies, increasing economic agil-
ity, and mitigating carbon emissions
where possible.
 0.0
As on-the-ground pilot projects and
implementation experience continue
to inform how the strategies can
provide cost-effective and meaning-
ful results, developing cross-sector
partnerships and basin-wide funding
for such investments will be nec-
essary to implement the strategies
at a scale commensurate to the
challenge. While it is too early to say
definitively how such a co­ordinated
funding approach might be sourced
and governed, this analysis highlights
just some of the existing federal and
state programs that could be applied
in a coordinated fashion with a clear
water-related climate resilience goal
for the Colorado River Basin. Phil-
anthropic and private funding could
be used to match or leverage these
federal and state dollars. Develop-
ment of such a coordinated approach
to water-­related climate resilience
funding is particularly timely for
several reasons:
5
1. Congress, the federal adminis-
tration and several Basin states
are focused on bolstering climate
mitigation and climate resilience,
and water and watershed resilience
can and should be at the cutting
edge of those efforts (Office of the
President 2021);
2. The Basin States, Tribal govern-
ments, and most major water
providers and users in the Basin
acknowledge the risks associated
with climate change and are begin-
ning to look for ways to address
those risks;
3. Over the next few years, the
­operational guidelines for the Colo-
rado River will be renegotiated, and
the effects of climate change will
be central to that negotiation. While
the guideline negotiations are not
necessarily the forum for structuring
investments in the types of strategies
discussed in this report, the guide-
lines process brings a clear focus to
the challenges facing the Basin and
may serve to motivate a more coordi-
nated approach to resilience; and
4. Most importantly, there is no
time to waste. The effects of climate
change, as experienced in a year
like 2020, are here now. Many of the
resilience strategies will take time
to be scaled-up and produce results
across the Basin’s watersheds.
 1.0
Climate change poses severe risks
to the economic and environmental
health of the Colorado River Basin.
Federal and state agencies and
water users are increasingly recog-
nizing these risks and examining
steps to deal with projected variabil-
ity and increased scarcity in water
supply through more flexible water
management strategies.1 Current
measures—including demand
management, system conservation,
intentionally created surplus (ICS),
and reservoir operation—will be vital
in the short-term to prevent short-
ages and increase drought response
capacity.
Although these flexible mecha-
nisms will help to manage systemic
water risks in the near term, they
ultimately represent just a first step.
Whatever the Basin’s short-term
challenges, the past decade has
provided a window to the more
significant on-going and future
challenges likely to result from the
combined impacts of continued
growth in demands, the natural
variation of precipitation and runoff,
and the increasingly noticeable
effects of climate change and other
landscape-level factors.
6
PURPOSE
AND CONTEXT
Each investment strategy is
described and assessed within
the context of four resilience
­questions:
This report seeks to bring to 1. Could the investment help the
light the potential for investigat- Basin adapt to on-going climate
ing, testing, and scaling-up ten shifts?
integrated investment strategies
aimed at preparing the Basin for 2. To what extent would the
long-term rising temperatures, high ­investment reduce pressure on
variability in precipitation patterns existing water supplies?
and increased drying, all of which
are projected to occur even if 3. Would the investment help
efforts to limit climate change are ­mitigate climate change?
taken seriously over the next few
decades. To support this inquiry, ten 4. Could the investment
proactive investment strategies for strengthen economic resilience
medium- and long-term responses in ­communities?
to the acute and progressive risks
of climate change in the Colorado
River Basin are examined:
• Forest Management &
­Restoration
• Natural Distributed Storage
• Regenerative Agriculture
• Upgrading Agricultural
­Infra­structure & Operations
• Cropping Alternatives & New
Market Pathways
• Urban Conservation & Re-Use
• Industrial Conservation & Re-Use
• Coal Plant Retirement Water
• Reducing Dust on Snow
• Covering Reservoirs & Canals
 1.0 ­ trategy. Section 5 summarizes vari-
s
ous financing options, and Section 6
offers conclusions and strategic
next steps. The Technical Appendix
contains more detail on each of the
strategies, including a summary of
the approach and current knowl-
edge; how it might be applied in
the Colorado River Basin; costs and
The next section, Section 2, barriers to implementation; and
provides definitions and context opportunities for further research,
for the four resilience questions. demonstration, and financing.
Section 3 explores the current state
of the four resilience questions by
providing background on climate
shifts both progressive and acute,
hydrologic risks across the Colo­rado
River Basin with a focus on water
supply, the need and opportunity
for climate mitigation activities,
and economic and social risks.
Section 4 provides an overview of
the research process and a short
summary of each investment

7
 2.0
There is a direct connection
between a warming atmosphere
and water supply challenges with
implications for the ecology and
human systems of the Colorado
River Basin. Climate change is the
main driver of hydrologic change
in the Colorado River Basin, with
intensifying impacts on hydrologic,
social, and economic systems.
The future of the Colorado River
Basin depends on actions taken
to adapt to climate change
impacts, to balance water supplies
and demands, and to mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions where
possible.
To make the case for an integrated
climate adaptation and water
management approach, this report
explains some of the climate change
dynamics and impacts in the Basin.
In response to those impacts, ten
integrated strategies are proposed
that can strengthen the Basin’s
capacity to respond to changing
conditions from multiple angles.
Each of the ten strategies are
qualitatively described within the
context of four resilience questions
that provide a conceptual evaluation
perspective to compare and high-
light each strategy.
8
RESILIENCE
QUESTIONS
1. Could the investment help the
Basin adapt to on-going climate
shifts?
As defined by the International
Panel on Climate Change, adap-
tation is a process of adjusting to
current and future conditions in an
effort to minimize harm and create
beneficial opportunities (Field,
Barros, and Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change 2014). Adap-
tation is an inherently iterative risk
management process that includes
identifying vulnerabilities, planning
for projects and actions, pursuing
implementation, monitoring
results, and revising further actions
(Lempert et al. 2018). The strategies
proposed in this report have the
potential to build adaptive capacity
in municipal sectors, agricultural
operations, and federal, state, and
tribal rangelands and forests.
2. To what extent would the invest-
ment reduce pressure on existing
water supplies?
This resilience question takes a
more traditional focus on augment-
ing supply, improving watershed
yield, or reducing demand as
pathways to increasing the buffer
between current conditions and
a future crisis. The Bureau of
Reclamation’s 2012 Colorado River
Basin Water Supply and Demand
Study (Bureau of Reclamation 2012)
presented a detailed analysis of
options and strategies to reduce
consumptive use and resolve supply
and demand imbalances. The ten
strategies explored here build from
the foundational work in the Basin
Study and the subsequent 2015
Moving Forward report (Bureau of
Reclamation 2015b) by positioning
water supply benefits in the context
of climate change and economic
resiliency actions.
 2.0

3. Would the investment help

­mitigate climate change?

Mitigation refers to measures that

have the potential to reduce the
extent and pace of future climate
change by limiting and preventing
greenhouse gas emissions and
enhancing activities that remove
gases from the atmosphere (Field,
Barros, and Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change 2014;
Martinich et al. 2018). While global-­
scale reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions are necessary to
address the magnitude, speed, and
scale of climate change dynamics,
watershed-­scale actions explored 4. Could the investments
in this report can reduce regional strengthen economic resilience
contributors to carbon emissions in ­communities?
and foster local practices that
remove carbon dioxide from the Uncertainties around the extent
atmosphere while also generating of climate change impacts on the
economic, social, and ecological biophysical environment can also
benefits (Martinich et al. 2018). lead to uncertainties and disruptions
in social and economic systems. This
report brings an intentional focus
to discussing the ways in which the
strategies may foster and increase
economic resilience by bolstering
the sustainability or profitability of
existing economic sectors or creating
new jobs and business linked to
restoration and/or infrastructure
improvements.

9
 3.0
Key Terms*
Acute Climate Extremes
The occurrence of a weather
or climate event either above
or below the range of histori-
cally observed thresholds.
Progressive Climate Change
An on-going shift in the
mean state of the climate
that persists for an extended
period of time.
Adaptation
A process of adjustment to
current and expected climate
conditions with the aim of
moderating harm at the mini-
mum, and optimally creating
beneficial opportunities.
Mitigation
Actions that limit or prevent
greenhouse gas emissions and
enhance activities that remove
gases from the atmosphere.
Resilience
The capacity for a system
(human and natural) to antic-
ipate, absorb, accommodate,
or recover from the impacts
of a hazardous event in a
timely, efficient, and equitable
manner.
* Adapted from Field et al 2014
10
CLIMATE AND
ECONOMIC RISK
changing climate dynamics illumi-
nate a need to proactively adapt
current legal, economic, and social
systems to respond to heightened
levels of risk and bolster the Basin’s
overall resilience.
The foundational water management In this report, the term risk is used
framework, policies, infra­structure, primarily to refer to the potential
and socio-economic systems in the climate-change impacts that result
Colorado River Basin were built from two drivers of climate change:
on climate patterns and expected (1) extreme events that dramatically
annual weather cycles that are both eclipse previous records and historic
progressively and abruptly changing. expectations and (2) progressive
Over the past two decades, the deviations from historic trends.
Colorado River Basin has experi-
enced an ongoing decline in stream
flows, record-­setting heat, some
of the driest years ever recorded,
and previously unimaginable cata-
strophic fires. The scale and pace of
climate-related changes affect the
availability and reliability of water
supplies, agricultural operations and
supply chains, rural and urban water
demands, energy use, and watershed
health. At an even deeper level,
 3.0
Figure 1. As global and Colorado River Basin temperatures rise, extremely hot weather
pushes the boundaries of what is possible while progressive increases in temperature shift
the mean away from historic trends and expectations (Adapted from Field, Barros, and
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014).

Progressive Climate Change Shifts the Mean Away from Historic and Expected Conditions

less more

Probability of Occurrence
cold hot
weather weather

even less more

extreme cold extreme hot
weather weather

Extreme Events Extend the Bounds of Possible Conditions

Distinguishing between progressive

change and acute extreme events
helps align adaptation responses to
the type of risk (Figure 1). For exam-
ple, an extreme temperature event
can create dangerous, if not deadly,
impacts on vulnerable populations,
crop viability, and forest fire potential Both progressive shifts in climate
at levels previously not experienced. conditions and extreme events
Simultaneously, progressive shifts increase hydrologic, social, and
towards overall hotter temperatures economic risk to municipalities,
place pressure on water and energy agriculture, industry, and watershed
systems to keep up with rising health throughout the Basin and
irrigation needs, municipal supply require innovative strategies to pro­­
demands, and energy consumption. actively respond and adapt (Bennet
2021). The ten investment strategies
explored in this report provide
ways to respond and adapt including
supporting adaptation measures,
reducing pressure on water supplies,
increasing the capacity to mitigate
climate change, and bolstering
economic resilience.

11
 3.1
Temperature
The range of annual temperature
variation is one of the largest drivers
that determines regions that are
most suitable for livability and agri-
culture, including in the Colorado
River Basin. Rising temperatures
contribute to more intense droughts,
reduced soil moisture, increasingly
heavy downpours, and reduced
snowpack throughout the Colorado
River Basin (Lall et al. 2018).
Under a business-as-usual climate
change scenario, the global band
of habitable temperatures will
shift more quickly and significantly
than it has over the past 8,000
years, forcing both adaptation and
migration (Xu et al. 2020). There
are many unknowns about how
agriculture and populations will
shift in the Basin, given projections
that portions of the Lower Colo-
rado River Basin could experience
extreme temperatures above
95-degree Fahrenheit for half of
the year (Liu, Stanturf, and Goodrick
2010; Lustgarten 2020; Frisvold
2016; Thiel 2013). If population
continues to grow in the hottest
parts of the Basin, water supply effi-
ciency, accessibility, and availability
will become even more important.
12
CLIMATE CHANGE
IN THE COLORADO
RIVER BASIN
Recent studies on temperature have
found that beginning in the early
1970s, both the Upper and Lower
Basins have experienced strong
positive increases in temperatures,
with a maximum shift above the
long-term mean of about 1.1 degree
Celsius (Tillman, Gangpadhyay, and
Pruitt 2020). Modelling results point
to continued increases in tempera-
tures above the historical median,
with steady warming in decadal
average temperatures through
the end of the century (Tillman,
­Gangpadhyay, and Pruitt 2020).
Precipitation
Winter and summer precipitation
patterns are shifting significantly
across the Basin. Snowpack, a key
component of the Colorado River
Basin’s water budget, has been
declining across 90% of snow moni-
toring sites in the western United
States, in tandem with increasing
evapotranspiration rates from snow
sublimation (Mote et al. 2018;
Knowles et al. 2015). Currently,
snowmelt-derived runoff contributes
roughly two-thirds of the inflow
into the major storage reservoirs in
the Basin, and the contribution of
snowmelt to total runoff is likely to
decrease by one third for the west-
ern United States (Li et al. 2017).
 3.1
Summer precipitation is a key
contributor to streamflows and
aquifer recharge in the Lower Basin.
Typically, the North American Mon­­
soon provides approximately 70%
of the total annual rainfall for the
Lower Basin and northern Mexico
states (Sheppard et al. 2002). The
monsoon is critical for soil moisture,
groundwater recharge, ecosystem
functions, rangeland grazing, and
agriculture in Arizona and New
Mexico. Climate researchers project
changes in monsoon patterns, with
significant declines in early season
precipitation (June-July) and occa-
sionally, though variable, increased
precipitation later in the monsoon
season (September-October)
(Truettner et al. 2019; Cook and
Seager 2013).
13
Recent research finds that
precipitation in the Upper Basin
is projected to increase through
the end of the century, potentially
rising to 6% above the 1951-2015
historical period by mid-century
and by 9% at the end of the century
(Tillman, Gangpadhyay, and Pruitt
2020). Conversely, the Lower Basin
is expected to see precipitations
at or less than the historical period
(1951-2015) (Tillman, Gangpadhyay,
and Pruitt 2020). Figure 2 illustrates
expected trends in both temperature
and precipitation for the Upper and
Lower Basins through the end of the
century (Tillman, Gangpadhyay, and
Pruitt 2020).
Aridification
Climate change-induced changes
in temperature combined with
precipitation shifts, is placing the
current drought on the trajectory
of a mega-drought (Williams et al.
2020) and shifting the baseline to
a permanently more water-scarce
environment (“aridification”) (Colo-
rado River Research Group 2018).
The risk of long-term and persistent Observed and ongoing changes
“hot drought” conditions throughout in climate have influenced fire
the Colorado River Basin is signif- potential across the globe and
icant where rising temperatures in the Colorado River Basin (Liu,
are projected to reduce streamflow L. Goodrick, and A. Stanturf 2013;
from 20% at mid-century to 35% Liu, Stanturf, and Goodrick 2010)
by the end of the century (Udall and and have resulted in significant
­Overpeck 2017; McCabe et al. 2017). and extreme recent fire events.
The compounding influence of
increased temperatures, lower soil
moisture, reduced precipitation, and
dense forest fuel loads is sparking
“very large fires,” defined as the top
5 or 10% of the largest fires in a
region’s history (Barbero et al. 2015).
Very large fires have increased
across the western United States in
the past decade and set new upper
bounds on the speed, magnitude,
and longevity of fires, shifting what
previously seemed impossible
 3.1 Figure 2. Precipitation and Temperature trends through 2100 in the Upper
and Lower Basins (adapted from Tillman, Gangpadhyay, and Pruitt 2020).

Upper Colorado River Basin Lower Colorado River Basin

420
into the realm of the frighteningly
­possible. Extreme fires, such as
those seen in 2020, re-define the 400
scale and possibility of very large
fires in the region and increasingly

Precipitation, in millimeters
threaten and affect homes and 380
communities, inflict severe ecolog-
ical damages, lead to direct and
indirect impacts on human health, 360

and have rippling economic reper-

Median of average paramter values during all ten-year periods

cussions.
340

320

300

20
Temperature, in degrees Celsius

15

10

5
1951 to 2015 2020 to 2099 1951 to 2015 2020 to 2099

Time Period

Explanation

90th percentile
Mean 75th percentile
50th percentile (median)
25th percentile
10th percentile

14
 3.2
Progressive climate-induced stream-
flow changes are increasingly well
documented in the Basin. Overall
conditions in the Basin have been
drier and warmer in the 21st century
relative to the 20th century, reflected
in diminished streamflows, reduced
snowpack, decreased summer
precipitation, declines in aquifer
recharge, and higher temperatures
(Williams et al. 2020). Between
2000 and 2014, the first 14-years of
an on-going drought, annual total
Colorado River flows averaged 19%
below the 1906-1999 average, while
Upper Basin streamflow declined
by 16.5% from 1916-2014 (Xiao,
Udall, and Lettenmaier 2018; Udall
and Overpeck 2017; Kuhn and Fleck
2019). Over 50% of the decreasing
runoff trend from 1906-2014 can
be linked to basin-wide warming
which has contributed to decreased
snowpack, higher evapotranspiration
rates, and lower soil moisture (Xiao,
Udall, and Lettenmaier 2018).
15
CLIMATE DRIVEN
IMPACTS ON
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
WATER SUPPLY
In some years, shifts in summer
rains may result in an overall
reduction in precipitation in the
Lower Basin, adding pressure to
groundwater supplies as surface
water supplies diminish. During
drought conditions from 2004-2013,
groundwater depletion exceeded the
rate of depletion in Lake Mead and
Lake Powell, indicating that ground-
water is a significant contributor to
Basin water use (Castle et al. 2014).
Recent modelling suggests that
over the next 80 years, groundwater
infiltration and aquifer recharge will
be consistently less than the previ-
ous 65 years (1951-2015), which
would significantly impact Lower
Basin water supplies (Tillman,
­Gangpadhyay, and Pruitt 2020).
As climate-induced streamflow
changes are unfolding, the past
three water years, from 2018-2020,
have also been a case study in inter-
secting extreme and acute climate
events in the Colorado River Basin.
In water year 2018, precipitation and
streamflows throughout the Basin
ended at record- or near-record low
levels, accompanied by record- or
near-record high average tempera-
tures and evaporative demand. In
September of 2018, stream flow
gages throughout the Upper Basin
recorded their lowest September
monthly flows on record (Western
Water Assessment 2020). The year
registered as one of the top five
driest and hottest years on record
for Arizona, Colorado, and Utah
(Western Water Assessment 2020;
National Weather Service 2020).
 3.2
The start of water year 2019
moved quickly from the hot and dry
conditions of the previous water
year to above-normal precipitation
and snowpack levels in the Upper
Basin and substantial rain and snow
in the Lower Basin that improved
drought conditions. Spring and
summer run-off bolstered reservoirs
and led to storage levels between
110-125% above average in some
Upper Basin states by fall (Western
Water Assessment 2020). However,
despite abundant winter precipita-
tion, a drier than average summer
season diminished regional soil
moisture values to below average
levels (Harpold and Molotch 2015).
Low soil moistures are further
exacerbated by diminished summer
monsoon and precipitation events
that deliver fewer storms to infiltrate
and hydrate soils. Extremely dry
soils with low moisture content in
the Upper Basin further diminish
runoff, weaken vegetation, and
heighten wildfire risk.
16
Water year 2020 began with higher
than average reservoir storage in
the Upper Basin, while Lake Mead
elevation levels sat comfortably
above shortage tiers. Strong storms
brought significant snowfall to
the Colorado River headwaters
and upper portions of the Rocky
Mountains. However, by July 2020,
conditions shifted rapidly and the
summer of 2020 broke records for
soaring temperatures with little to
no precipitation. In Colorado, the
heat broke high temperature records
across the state, with 75 days in
Denver and 98 days in Pueblo
eclipsing 90 degrees. Arizona
recorded the highest number of
days ever where temperatures
exceeded 110 degrees. The relent-
less high temperatures were a result
of a high-pressure dome over the The six-month period from April
Lower Basin and the persistent and to December 2020 was one of
excessive heat wave qualified as an the driest periods on record in the
extreme climate event (Machemer Basin. Within that six-month period,
2020; Livingston and Freedman the four months from August to
2020). December registered as among the
driest of those months on record,
bested only by August 2002 and
September 2018. Conditions in early
2021 resembled 2002, 2012, 2013
and the beginning of 2018, which
are four out of the five driest years
on record.2
 3.3
In order to avoid the most severe
risks of climate change, rapid reduc-
tions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases to “net zero” will
be required at the global, national,
and regional scales. Limiting global
warming to the 2°C threshold set
in the Paris Climate Agreement will
require investment in a broad range
of reductions in many sectors across
the globe, with a focus on developing
and implementing solutions that
benefit local economics, commu-
nities, and ecological systems
(Martinich et al. 2018). While achiev-
ing this goal is daunting, and federal
action is currently lagging in the U.S.,
proactive investment in solutions at
the state or regional levels can be a
testbed for the robustness of land-
based mitigation activities.
A comprehensive portfolio of solu-
tions needs to include zero-­carbon
energy production, energy efficiency
solutions, nature-based climate solu-
tions, low-carbon food production,
and low-carbon water storage and
distribution. When implemented at
scale across the entire U.S., nature-
based climate solutions such as
forest management and restoration,
agricultural and grassland manage-
ment, and wetland management
could contribute to a 21% reduction
17
CLIMATE
CHANGE
MITIGATION
in California in 2020—more than
double the record set in 2018. In
addition, five of the largest six
fires in California’s modern history
in annual emissions for the U.S. occurred in 2020. Greenhouse
(Fargione et al. 2018). Several of the gases generated by the U.S. econ-
investments outlined in this report omy in 2020 decreased by 9.2%,
could contribute to mitigation poten- bringing total emissions to about
tial in the Colorado River Basin to the same level as 1983 (Mufson
varying degrees, especially if imple- 2020). Those national gains–which
mented at scale. came at a steep cost to the U.S.
economy (Mufson 2020)—were
Progressive climate shifts are also negated by roughly 30% due to the
likely to impact the permanence of carbon dioxide and other pollutants
carbon stored in biomass around released into the air from the
the globe (Fargione et al. 2018). record-setting extreme fires along
Climate change feedback loops the west coast and in the Rocky
increase the likelihood of large Mountains (Mufson 2020).
landscape-scale disturbances, such
as fires, which have measurable
and degrading effects on global
emissions. The summer of 2020
showcased the dangerous conse-
quences of compromised forest
health and extreme fire. The three
largest fires in Colorado history
occurred in 2020. The East Trouble­
some, Cameron Peak, and Pine Gulch
fires together burned over 600,000
acres. Over 4 million acres burned
 3.4
Economic risks from climate
change include, but are not limited
to, increased water costs, lower
labor productivity, reduced crop
productivity, impacts to public
health, and increases in insurance
premiums. Extreme climate events
and progressive climate impacts
already cost billions of dollars in
the United States annually and the
total costs of these events are rising
(Davenport and Smialek 2020;
Lustgarten 2020; Oreskes and Stern
2019). “Climate change is water
change”3 and the bulk of these costs
are associated with water-related
impacts such as floods, droughts,
hurricanes, and wildfires that can all
be linked to changes in the hydro-
logic cycle.4
Despite the fact that the Basin is
largely landlocked, sea level rise also
poses an economic risk to the Basin,
because as coastlines are eroded
and flooded people move inland,
including to communities in the
Basin. Migrating populations will
seek places that can offer afford-
able housing and employment.
A recent modelling study projects
that the Phoenix metropolitan area
will be among the top regions in
the U.S. for population migration
from coastal cities (Hauer 2017).
Maricopa County, which encom-
passes Phoenix metropolitan-area
cities, is already one of the fastest
growing counties in the Nation,5
even with the escalating tempera-
tures and increasing aridity. This
18
ECONOMIC &
SOCIAL RISKS
paradox highlights the trade-offs
in population responses to climate
change. Populations may be faced
with trading one risk (sea level rise)
for another (extreme heat).
Relatedly, the impacts and risks
associated with climate change
disproportionately affect vulner-
able people and communities (or
populations of concern), including
people and communities with low
income, communities of color,
immigrant groups, Indigenous
peoples, older adults, persons with
preexisting medical conditions,
and others (Gamble et al. 2016;
IPCC 2014). People living in at-risk
areas including impoverished
urban areas, isolated rural areas,
floodplains, or coastlines, “are more
vulnerable not only to extreme
weather and persistent climate
change but also to social and
economic stressors” (Gamble et al.
2016). Indigenous people, especially
those who live in geographically
isolated and/or impoverished
communities, are likely to experi-
ence “greater exposure and lower
resilience to climate-related health
effects” (Gamble et al. 2016). The
National Congress of American Indi-
ans (NCAI) established a Climate
Action Task Force to “document,
inform, and support the climate
action efforts of tribal nations and
organizations” and advocate for
policies and funding to support
climate actions (National Congress
of American Indians 2019). In the
Navajo Nation,“[r]ising temperatures
and declining rainfall have made
groundwater the principal drinking
water source for many residents,”
which leaves those residents and
communities even more exposed
and vulnerable to climate risks and
related social, economic, and health
consequences,6 challenges also
faced by other tribal communities.
The Navajo Nation’s Climate Adap-
tation Plan identifies water security,
overgrazing, and land use manage-
ment and planning as three of the
six priority areas related to climate
vulnerabilities and adaptation strat-
egies (Tom, Begay, and Yazzie 2018).
 4.0
Throughout the world, water users
and managers, scientists, local
communities, entrepreneurial
innovators, and non-governmental
organizations are looking for
ways to increase the long-term
resilience and health of the basins
that supply critical water needs for
humans, agriculture, industry and
the environment (Field, Barros, and
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change 2014; Reidmiller et al. 2018).
These efforts are driven by many
factors, including the need to reverse
historic degradation, improve water-
shed health and reduce hydrologic
vulnerability to climate change. Simi-
lar efforts are beginning to develop
in the Colorado River Basin (Snider
2020), but they have largely been
carried out in the periphery of efforts
like the development of the 2007
Interim Guidelines, the Drought
OVERVIEW
OF INVESTMENT
STRATEGIES
While well-tested and widely imple-
mented water conservation efforts
are essential, they are developed and
implemented with a focus on the
management, movement, and use of
water and therefore do not typically
or sufficiently include or consider
broader economic, environmental,
and social risks from changing
climate dynamics. By focusing
solely on managing water supply
and demands within the context of
drought and climate change, there
may be missed opportunities to
explore multi-faceted strategies
that could adapt to, respond to, and
mitigate the steady, compounding,
and extreme risks of climate change
to economies, communities, land-
scapes, and water resources.
Figure 3. Range of Application and Implementation Experience for Each Strategy in the
Colorado River Basin
Upgrading
Urban Agricultural
Conservation Infrastructure
& Re-Use & Operations
EXPERIENCED
There is potential for investigating,
testing, and scaling-up investment
strategies aimed at preparing the
Basin for long-term rising tempera-
tures, high variability in precipitation
patterns and increased drying, all of
which are projected to occur even
if efforts to limit climate change
are taken seriously over the next
few decades. The ten strategies
explored in this report range from
well-­demonstrated, to emerging,
to theoretical but largely untested
concepts (Figure 3).
Forest Natural Covering
Management Distributed Reservoirs
& Restoration Storage & Canals
EMERGING T H E O R E T I CA L

Contingency Plans and various state

Industrial Cropping Regenerative Coal Plant Reducing
water planning efforts that focus on
Conservation Alternatives & Agriculture Retirement Dust on
traditional demand/supply analyses & Re-Use New Market Water Snow
and water management solutions. Pathways

19
 4.0
The research began with an
extensive literature review on each
strategy. Information was gathered
from the Bureau of Reclamation’s
2012 Colorado River Basin Water
Supply and Demand Study, (Bureau
of Reclamation 2012) the 2015
Moving Forward Report (Bureau of
Reclamation 2015a), the 2018 Tribal
Water Study (Ten Tribes Partner­
ship 2018), peer-reviewed studies,
agency reports, and white papers.
Following the initial compilation of
literature, on-the ground experience
from various conservation programs,
applied academic research, and
implementation data from water
management agencies in the Basin
was compiled and integrated into
summaries for each strategy. Taken
together, the investment strategies
represent a diverse set of actions
that could be implemented at multi-
ple geographies and timescales,
industries, agriculture, NGOs, and
management agencies to build resil-
ience to moderate and acute levels
of hydrologic risk and progressive
and extreme climate impacts.
Figure 4. Qualitative Benefits of Each Strategy
Investment Strategies Climate Shifts Water Supplies Change Resilience
Forest Management & Restoration
Natural Distributed Storage
Regenerative Agriculture
Upgrading Agricultural Infrastructure & Operations
Cropping Alternatives & New Market Pathways
Urban Conservation & Re-Use
Industrial Conservation & Re-Use
Coal Plant Retirement Water
Reducing Dust on Snow
Covering Reservoirs & Canals
20
Overall, the research revealed that
benefits and implementation costs
are predominately site-specific,
making it challenging, if not impos-
sible at this time, to precisely and
accurately quantify the economic, It is challenging to precisely and
environmental, and social benefits accurately quantify benefits that
and total costs at a basin-scale. could result from scaling up these
Recognizing this limitation, the strategies in applicable regions of
final research step made an effort the Basin since benefits are site
to qualitatively conceptualize the specific and effectiveness data is
expected benefits of each strategy to limited or non-existent (with the
a) adapt to climate shifts, b) reduce possible exception of urban and
pressure on water supplies, c) miti- industrial conservation efforts).
gate climate change, and d) increase Similarly, it is not possible to accu-
economic resilience (Figure 4). rately estimate total costs necessary
to scale such strategies in appli-
Sections 4.1 through 4.10 present a cable areas of the Basin (though it
high level overview of each strategy. could potentially run into the billions
A companion Technical Appendix over a decade or more). The analysis
provides a detailed discussion and also identified plenty of barriers to
a comprehensive reference list scaling up these strategies.
for each strategy. The Technical
­Appendix was developed from a
thorough literature review and
on-the-ground knowledge of a broad
range of contributors, and serves
as the knowledge base for the main
report as well as each summary.
Adapt To Reduce Pressure Mitigate Strengthen
On-Going on Existing Climate Economic
 4.0
Brief Summary of Barriers to
­Scaling Up Investment Strategies
Forest Management & Restoration:
Cultural, statutory, jurisdictional
and cost barriers to changing forest
management practices; lack of
funding for preventative actions and
restoration; still developing science
on best approaches for improving
watershed yield; potential for litiga-
tion from opponents.
Natural Distributed Storage:
­Additional demonstrations needed
to fully document potential benefits
for and impacts to ranching profit-
ability; water rights and permitting
complications; getting watershed
level consensus on projects and
pursuing research and monitoring
on the hydrologic benefits.
Regenerative Agriculture: More
research on applicable practices
needed; multi-year gap between
investment and financial benefit;
increased labor and equipment
costs; agricultural finance structures
favor conventional practices; no
market premium for products from
regenerative operations.
21
Upgrading Agricultural
­Infrastructure & Operations:
Incentives to change practices or
upgrade systems sometimes lack-
ing; more comprehensive watershed
approaches need additional fund-
ing; need to focus on improvements
to most productive lands to sustain
value proposition of investments.
Cropping Alternatives & New
Market Pathways: Incentives to
switch from traditional crops may
be lacking; need for marketing and
processing facilities and critical
mass of producers to justify those
investments; up front capital costs,
risk mitigation, and technical
assistance needs; and uncertainties
regarding trade-offs, including
implications for avian and wildlife
species.
Urban Conservation & Re-use:
Conservation can reduce water
utility revenues if programs not
properly structured; opposition to
some forms of re-use; incentives
to change may be lacking in over-
built systems.
Industrial Conservation & Re-use:
Technical complications for some
strategies; potentially high costs;
and lack of incentives for change.
Coal Plant Retirement Water:
Complex economic and social
issues associated with plant
closures and long decision time-
lines; legal and regulatory hurdles
in repurposing coal plant water;
competing uses for coal plant water.
Reducing Dust on Snow: More
research on where and what inter-
ventions would be most effective;
source of financing unclear; need
to work with willing institutional
landowners to get to scale; potential
opposition to practice changes.
Covering Reservoirs & Canals:
Largely untested except on smaller
scale; physical methods have
high capital costs; chemical meth-
ods have high maintenance costs;
potential for adverse environmental
and recreational effects; legal and
permitting issues.
Despite the barriers, these ten strat-
egies offer a means of ­responding
and adapting to progressive and
extreme climate events, and reduc-
ing hydrologic, social, and economic
risk for municipalities, agriculture,
industry, and watershed health.
Efforts taken to reduce the barriers
can help pave the way to climate
resilience in the Colorado River
Basin.
 4.1
adapt
mitigate
strengthen
Resilience Benefits:
Well managed forests provide
numerous benefits, including
preventing soil erosion; supporting
water infiltration; regulating snow
melt and water supply; improving
water quality; lowering water
treatment costs; capturing carbon;
and benefiting wildlife habitat
and fisheries. Implementing best
practices in forest management and
forest restoration can help maintain
these benefits and potentially miti-
gate against watershed degradation,
severe wildfire, and other climate
change impacts. Forest manage-
ment and restoration can also help
in adapting to climate shifts as
conditions in the Basin change, such
as regulating snow melt runoff and
increasing economic resilience
through job creation and reduced
emergency costs, among other
benefits.
22
FOREST
MANAGEMENT &
RESTORATION
Investment Summary:
Forest manage­ment, as defined by
the IPCC’s Climate Change and Land
Report, means “the stewardship and
use of forests and forest lands in a
way, and at a rate, that maintains
their biodiversity, productivity, There are several reasons why the
regeneration capacity, vitality, and forests are deteriorating in health.
their potential to fulfill now and in the The U.S. has maintained a culture and
future, relevant ecological, economic history of fire suppression for the past
and social functions at local, national hundred years which has prevented
and global levels and that does not fires from clearing small trees and
cause damage to other ecosystems” bushes. Logging that removes mainly
(IPCC 2014). Forest restoration, on large, older trees, and leaves surface
the other hand, means engaging in fuel increases the fire hazard and fire
practices that regain ecological integ- severity. Insects and disease along
rity from degraded systems. Forest with recreational activities have also
management and restoration are significantly affected the state of the
both essential practices to maintain forest. Moreover, a lack of funding
system functionality and biodiversity has hindered the U.S. Forest Service
in places where landscape degrada- from implementing planned forest
tion is historic, current, or predicted management projects.
based on climate warming scenarios
projected to transform ecological
systems. In addition to the eco­­system
benefits, such activities can also
create jobs and provide public fund-
ing savings because of the reduced
expenses on emergency wildfire
response.
 4.1
A number of entities are working
on forest restoration projects in
the Basin, including Denver Water,
the Salt River Project, the Indig-
enous Peoples Burning Network,
Blue Forest, and the Mountain
Studies Institute, among others.
It has however been difficult to
implement forest management and
restoration practices at the needed
ecological scale because of the
high cost of management ($1,000-
$4,000+ an acre), jurisdictional
challenges in implementation, a
culture of fire suppression, and
concerns around litigation, among
other challenges.
23
To advance forest management
and restoration efforts, support
for the development of science to
improve understanding of where and
how forest management activities
can increase snowpack, increase
snowmelt duration, water retention,
watershed resilience, improve flows/
hydrographs, reduce the risk of
high-­­severity wildfires, and provide
net carbon storage will be necessary,
along with financing and stakeholder
support to implement projects and
bring the actions to scale.
 4.2
adapt
mitigate
strengthen
Resilience Benefits:
This strategy has the potential to
build adaptive capacity in eco­­
systems and ranching operations to
cope with ongoing climate shifts.
Investments in natural distributed
storage could also have important
resilience benefits in mitigating
climate change by reducing and
sequestering greenhouse gas
emissions and increasing economic
resilience by providing cost-effective
mechanisms to restore degraded
working lands and potentially
improve land value and profitabil-
ity of operations.
Investment Summary: As used
in this report, natural distributed
storage refers to a project or a series
of projects across a watershed that
store water in shallow, unconfined
floodplain aquifers that interact
directly with streams, support native
vegetation, and influence the timing
and quality of streamflow. Natural
distributed storage projects have a
range of identifiable characteristics.
24
NATURAL
DISTRIBUTED
STORAGE
Natural distributed storage projects
primarily use natural materials
that are appropriate to the specific
site and landscaping setting, and
largely rely on natural riverine,
wetland, hydrologic, or ecological
processes. They can result in aquifer
recharge, transient floodplain water
retention, or reconnection of historic
floodplains to stream channels.
Projects are generally designed to
produce two or more environmental
benefits, including (1) stream flow
timing changes that are beneficial
to watershed health, (2) fish and
wildlife habitat or migration
corridor restoration, (3) floodplain
reconnection and inundation, or
(4) riparian or wetland restoration
and ­improvement.
Much of the naturally distributed
storage historically present in west-
ern watersheds was lost due to the
ditching and draining of wetlands
for agricultural conversion, intensive
grazing of cattle and sheep, chan-
nelization and stabilization of rivers,
and the extirpation of beaver and the
removal of their dams during the 19th
and 20th centuries. The net conse-
quence of these combined forces
was the widespread occurrence of
channel incision and degradation,
which both drained naturally distrib-
uted floodplain and meadow storage
and continued to prevent its filling
by typical annual flooding.
 4.2
The restoration of wet meadows
and implementation of various
analogs to beaver-related restoration
tactics have shown promise as a
means by which to re-establish
naturally distributed storage at the
watershed scale at which it was lost.
Investments in these activities are
often aimed at improving watershed
resilience through recharging ground-
water reserves, supporting floodplain
functions, regulating stream hydro-
graphs, providing habitat, minimizing
erosion, and resisting and supporting
recovery from extreme events (i.e.,
droughts, floods, and fires).
25
There is still a significant amount
of information needed to under-
stand the consequences of these
projects, and ensure that they are
sited, implemented, and monitored
to achieve the desired watershed
benefits. However, demonstration
projects so far have indicated that
there is enormous potential in this
strategy. Natural distributed storage
restoration methods are considered
to be relatively low-cost, but most of
the existing cost information relates
to smaller, reach-scale projects.
Larger-scale projects would involve
greater resources, time, and co­­­
ordination, but could facilitate better
prioritization across basins and
watersheds and could link up with
related projects to deal with “core”
issues such as roads or grazing
practices upstream that are causing
sedimentation issues downstream.
 4.3
adapt
reduce
mitigate
strengthen
Resilience Benefits:
Regenerative agriculture offers an
opportunity to enhance resilience
in the Colo­­­rado River Basin. It can
contribute to climate change miti-
gation by reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and sequestering carbon.
It can boost adapation by expanding
the capacity of soils to store water
which helps keep local temperatures
cooler and helps reduce dust and
the impact of extreme flood and
drought. Enhanced water-holding
capacity in soils can also reduce
the need for irrigation, thereby
limiting pressure on existing water
supplies. ­Re­­generative agriculture
can help ensure economic resil-
ience in communities by reducing
downstream damages from acute
weather events, assuring cleaner
groundwater and groundwater
recharge, and diversifying the forms
of productive income available to
agricultural communities.
26
REGENERATIVE
AGRICULTURE
Investment Summary:
Regenerative agriculture is a broad
term that focuses on restoring and
improving soil health biodiversity
through farming and grazing
practices that rebuild organic matter
and bio­­diversity with the aim of
increasing soil moisture, water
retention, and carbon sequestration.
Regenerative agricultural practices,
broadly defined, include, but are not
limited to, no-till agriculture, use of
cover crops, diverse crop rotations,
rotating crops with livestock graz-
ing, and intensive grazing rotation.
Research into and application of
regenerative agriculture techniques
has expanded significantly in the
last decade, driven by several factors
including: the prospect of increased
yields; the need to restore degraded
soils; a desire to reduce fertilizer
and pesticide inputs; reinstituting
Indigenous farming cultures; water
scarcity; and the potential for
carbon markets to offer payments
for increased storage of carbon
in soils. Several studies project
that widespread application of
regenerative agriculture techniques
could draw down enough carbon to
significantly counter global emis-
sions, in addition to the co-benefits
of healthier soils, improved crop
and rangeland yields, increased
water retention, and improved bio­
diversity. Other research, however,
clarifies that not all regenerative
agricultural practices will sequester
and permanently store carbon and
questions whether the magnitude
of regenerative agriculture’s poten-
tial contribution to climate change
mitigation is over-estimated.
 4.3
In the Colorado River Basin, there
are three areas where regenerative
practices could potentially provide
hydrological resilience, economic
resilience, and climate change
mitigation benefits: (1) range­­land
restoration and stewardship,
particularly on lands in federal, state
or tribal ownership; (2) improved
soil health in irrigated grass and
hay pasture operations; and (3)
increased use of cover crops in
farming operations. These practices
are already being implemented in
some areas of the Basin, though on
a sporadic basis, and much more
research is needed to quantify
benefits. State agricultural depart-
ments in Colorado, New Mexico
and Utah have established healthy
27
soils programs and the issue is
a priority for many of the NRCS
state-level offices in the Basin.
There are also partnerships among
agricultural producers, universities,
and others examining the use of
regenerative practices, such as the
Colorado Collaborative for Healthy
Soils. Opportunities to further this
strategy include coordinated federal,
state and/or tribal funding and
support of regenerative agriculture
demonstrations; market and/or tax
incentives that favor regenerative
practices; and addressing the
substantial financing barriers to
conversion from conventional
to regenerative practices.
 4.4
adapt
reduce
mitigate
strengthen
Resilience Benefits: Improving
agricultural infrastructure and
operations may reduce pressure on
existing water supplies by making
operations more efficient, reducing
the potential for over-­diversion
from streams and rivers and
potentially reducing consumptive
use. The improvements may help
the Basin’s agriculture adapt to
and become more resilient to the
effects of climate change such as
reduced stream flows and higher
temperatures. Throughout the
Basin, improving yield and profit
margins through upgrades targeted
at the most productive lands may
allow more marginal lands to be
returned to native grasses or cover
crops (which might, in the future, be
able to generate recognized carbon
offsets) or used to produce solar
or wind energy, helping to mitigate
climate change and further reduce
pressure on water supplies. Ensur-
ing that agricultural infrastructure
and operations are up to the chal-
lenges of higher temperatures and
reduced flows can help bolster and
sustain the economic resilience of
rural communities where irrigated
agriculture has been and is a signifi-
cant part of the economy.
28
UPGRADING
AGRICULTURAL
INFRASTRUCTURE &
OPERATIONS
Investment Summary: Much of
the Basin’s irrigation infrastructure,
particularly in the Upper Basin is
old, cumbersome, in dire need of
repair, and labor intensive to operate
and maintain. These challenges
reduce irrigation efficiency, cause
damage to streams, and hamper
farm and ranch productivity. While
many Lower Basin operations are
larger, with newer, more automated
infrastructure and laser-leveled
fields, there may be opportunities
to achieve greater productivity with
less water in these operations as
well. Tribal agriculture is also in
need of investment, as Basin Tribes
seek to improve existing operations
and put their Colorado River rights
to beneficial use.
Infrastructure upgrades may include
simple, low-cost actions such
as installing check structures or
measurement structures, to more
advanced options like replacing
seasonal instream push up dams
with modern automated headgates
and diversion structures with fish
passage; adding more precise water
measurement systems; lining or
piping collapsing ditches; improving
on-farm irrigation systems; and
replacing old turbines and pumps.
Operational investments might
include consolidating many small
ditch companies into larger and
more efficient operations; imple-
menting precision agricultural
techniques to closely monitor soil
moisture and soil health; increasing
precision in scheduling water
diversions and deliveries (including
deficit irrigation, where viable),
and creating local, intra-district or
regional programs that allow for
temporary, compensated reductions
in water use.
 4.4

The costs of upgrading agricultural

infrastructure and operations to
enhance their productivity and
resilience and improve river health
vary widely with the location, type
of improvement and economies
of scale. Given the state of current
infrastructure and the extent
of irri­­­gated acreage in the Basin,
however, the total cost over the
long-term could be quite high,
though there are targeted and less
costly measures that could lead to
measurable improvements. There are several on-going efforts watershed-level infrastructure
to upgrade agricultural infra­structure improvement plans that can obtain
in the Basin and there are more grant or loan financing and that
opportunities that have been identi- produce benefits at scale: to produc-
fied through on-the-groundwork by ers, watersheds and local economies.
agricultural producers and conserva- Several such planning efforts have
tion organizations working together. been in the works or are being
A key approach to this strategy contemplated and support for these
will be to develop comprehensive, collaborative efforts will be critical.

29
 4.5
adapt
reduce
mitigate
strengthen
Resilience Benefits:
Investments in alternative crops
and creation of new pathways
for farmers to access high-value
markets could help reduce pressure
on existing water supplies and
generate resiliency benefits includ-
ing: adapting to on-going climate
shifts by providing options for
agricultural producers ­experiencing
impacts to crop productivity and
strengthening regional food systems
and security; mitigat­ing climate
change by exploring how cropping
strategies, operations, processing,
and transportation might reduce and
sequester greenhouse gas emissions;
and increasing economic resilience
by testing and demonstrating the
economic viability of new crops and
market pathways.
30
CROPPING
ALTERNATIVES &
NEW MARKET PATHWAYS
Investment Summary:
Identifying and implementing
changes to the types of crops
produced around the Basin depends
on a variety of local considerations,
including suitability of crop alterna-
tives to the region, soil, and climate;
practicality and cost of operational
and labor changes to produce the
new crop; availability of market
pathways locally and regionally for
the new crop; and other factors.
Alternative crops could result in
reduced water consumption either
through (1) shifting from water
intensive crops to more water
efficient crops or (2) shifting to
crops that have comparable water
efficiency attributes, but which
have a higher economic value that
can justify conservation practices
to reduce consumptive demand
on other acreage. These practices
relate to and are often undertaken
in combination with other agricul-
tural and/or water conservation
practices (see Up­­­grading Agricul-
ture Infra­structure & Operations and
Regenerative ­Agriculture strategies).
Irrigated agriculture is the largest
category of water use in the Basin.
From 1985 to 2010, more than 85%
of water diverted from the River
was used for irrigated crops. Grass,
pasture, and alfalfa for cattle are
the Basin’s major crops, followed
by wheat, vegetables and fruit,
and cotton. Studies suggest that a
significant amount of water could
be conserved by changing the types
of crops produced without taking
land out of production. However,
estimating generalized water
savings is difficult because water
savings potential varies based on
region, climate, the initial crop, the
replacement crop, and other factors.
Moreover, crop switching can
involve significant costs at the farm
level (field preparation, new equip-
ment, additional labor, seed and
other input costs). Scaling up will
require investments in processing,
transportation, marketing capacity,
and legal costs to develop new
market pathways.
 4.5

While there are some examples

of cropping changes specifically
targeted at lower water use crops in
the Basin, there has been little incen-
tive for producers to invest the time
and resources to switch from rela-
tively stable crops such as alfalfa to
lower water use alternatives. Incen-
tives may begin to appear as drier
conditions become more frequent,
requiring agricultural operations to
adjust water use expectations and
leading to more opportunities for
research, case studies, and improved
knowledge. Water supply benefits
could be significant and investing
in cropping alternatives and new
market pathways could provide
benefits to local streams and habi-
tats as well as local and regional
food systems and food security.

Given the potential resilience and

economic benefits, it would be
useful to encourage existing and
new explorations of crop alternatives
and creation of new markets. There
are several initiatives and university
research efforts to build upon, as well
as policy recommendations to resolve
financing and other barriers.

31
 4.6
adapt
reduce
mitigate
strengthen
Resilience Benefits:
Investments in urban conservation
and re-use may contribute to the
resilience of the Basin by mitigating
pressure on existing water supplies
as populations and water demands
continue to grow; adapting to
climate shifts by efficiently using
available resources; mitigating
climate change by reducing energy
use and emissions implicated in
water transportation; and increasing
economic resilience in communities
by creating jobs, limiting rising
water fees and rates, and limiting
the associated impacts of water
shortages on health, financial loss,
and displacement.
32
URBAN
CONSERVATION
& RE-USE
Investment Summary:
Urban water efficiency and conser-
vation programs are highly effective
at saving water. They can and are
being used to offset population
growth and forestall or prevent the
need for additional supplies. The
programs can also help businesses
reduce overhead and provide jobs.
There are a variety of different types
of water efficiency and conservation
measures. These include indoor and
outdoor measures (e.g. low-water
use toilets and showers, and smart
irrigation), water utility measures
(e.g. programs to detect leaks and
audits), and reuse (e.g. direct and
indirect potable reuse).
While urban water use comprises
only about 15% of the total Colorado
River water use, it is the fastest
growing water demand sector in
the Colorado River Basin. Despite
upward trends in water deliveries
and demands, per capita water
deliveries dropped an average of
at least one percent per year from
1990 to 2008, generating roughly
two million acre-feet in water
savings during that same time
period. Several large metropolitan
areas reliant in part on Colorado
River water are implementing water
efficiency, conservation, and reuse
programs that have been highly
effective at reducing per capita
water use and stretching supplies
through water recycling even while
the customer base and number
of service connections increase.
Implementing conservation
programs and rate increases can
be a cost-­effective way to reduce
demand, avoid new infrastructure,
and support a growing population,
as demonstrated in several case
study cities.
 4.6
The cost of urban water conserva-
tion measures will vary depending
upon the type of measure imple-
mented. Some of the measures
may cost more than they save over
time, thus municipalities have to
weigh the water savings with the
implementation costs. Municipal-
ities will also have to weigh the
other potential implications such
as reduced revenue from reduced
demand, hardening of demand,
and any changes required in state
law to enact certain measures like
reuse. There are also various factors
to consider with urban water reuse
strategies, such as impacts to rivers
or riparian habitat or downstream
water users that rely on discharges,
and water quality considerations.
33
Urban conservation and re-use
activities are well-demonstrated and
are taking hold throughout the Basin
and adjacent areas that use Colo-
rado River water. With urban areas
expected to continue to grow, urban
conservation and re-use efforts will
be critical to support additional
water demands and reduce stress on
reservoirs and eco­­systems. To imple-
ment these measures, municipalities
will require adequate financing
and rate structures to support the
implementation of indoor and outdoor
efficiency measures and re-use
infrastructure and engage in public
education campaigns.
 4.7
adapt
reduce
mitigate
strengthen
Resilience Benefits:
By changing practices and modi-
fying or updating equipment to
reduce water use and increase
energy efficiencies, industries
can generate significant water
and energy savings, and lead the
way in promoting socially and
environmentally responsible water
management efforts in the Basin.
Industrial conservation and re-use
can help mitigate climate change
by changing energy demands such
that emissions can be reduced,
limiting pressure on water supplies
by implementing water efficient
practices and/or offsetting water
use, adapting to climate shifts
through planning and implement-
ing sustainable water and energy
practices, and increasing economic
resilience by supporting water
smart economic development.
34
INDUSTRIAL
CONSERVATION
& RE-USE
Investment Summary:
Industrial water use in the Basin
includes power plant cooling, mining,
snow making, food and beverage
manufacturing, semiconductor and
electronics manufacturing, data
centers, chemicals and pharmaceu-
ticals, and oil and gas extraction.
Commercial, Industrial, and Insti-
tutional (CII) users can account for
up to 30-40% of the total M&I use
in areas with large institutional and
industrial users. Awareness around
drought and climate change has
grown in recent years and many
industrial sectors are beginning to
recognize the link between water risk
and business risk. Various initiatives
such as the CEO Water Mandate
and Ceres Connect the Drops are
encouraging companies to assess
and understand the physical, regu-
latory, and reputational risks that
can arise from water issues. In addi-
tion, many corporations have made
overall commitments to enhance the
sustainability of their operations and
promote environ­mental stewardship.
Areas where industrial conservation
practices could potentially provide
hydrologic and other climate adapta-
tion benefits and where companies
have been engaging in water and
energy efficiencies, include data
centers, cooling systems, and reuse
practices. Data centers have signifi-
cant environmental footprints, using
large amounts of electricity and water
for cooling. However, some data
centers are coming up with solutions
to reduce their water consumption,
including engaging in reuse, and
attempting to be net water positive.
Apart from data centers, other
industries use wet-cooling systems to
cool buildings and dispose of waste
heat. These include hospitals, office
complexes, and university campuses.
Used in many institutional and
 4.7
commercial facilities, cooling towers
are a significant aspect of facilities’
water use (constituting 20-50% of
total use). Newer, zero-water dry
cooling systems exist which can be
used to replace the older systems in
a variety of industries. The switch
can cut water use, reduce demands
on municipal water supplies, and
conserve energy.
shareholders. A suite of actions
that could be taken to incentivize
companies to implement water
conservation and re-use practices
include engaging with companies
early in the building design plan-
ning process and implementing
pilot projects to help justify the
return on the investment. To assist
with cost justifications, potential
opportunities at the federal or state
level include providing incentives
through tax credits or deductions for
businesses to engage in sustainable
practices like water conservation
or reuse.

There are several barriers to

implementing industrial water and
energy efficiency projects, including
costs, technical complications, and
difficulty in meeting returns on
investments. To implement upgrades
or redesign systems, businesses
must justify the costs to executives
and, in certain circumstances, to

35
 4.8
adapt
reduce
mitigate
Resilience Benefits:
Coal plant retirement can help
increase the resiliency of the Basin
by mitigating climate change
through the reduction of greenhouse
gases. Finding appropriate mecha-
nisms to dedicate coal plant water
to system or environmental benefit
could help the Basin adapt to climate
change while repurposing the
water supplies to other uses where
appropriate could reduce pressure
on existing supplies. Mitigation
transition funds could be required
to avoid adverse local impacts in
communities dependent on coal or
coal-fired power plants.
36
COAL PLANT
RETIREMENT
WATER
water from retiring coal plants could
potentially provide a host of benefits
for the surrounding communities and
Colorado River system. According
to an initial inventory of coal-fired
power plants in the western United
Investment Summary: States, there are 22 coal plants in
For over 50 years, coal-fired power the Basin (including those support-
plants have provided electricity ing major cities on the Front Range
to communities and industries in of Colorado) that either recently
various regions of the Colorado closed or are expected to reduce or
River Basin. While historically these close operations by 2042.
plants provided relatively cheap
and reliable power, they increasingly
cannot compete financially with
cleaner energy sources, such as
solar and wind. Moreover, state
policies to reduce emissions, such
as the Colorado Pollution Reduction
Roadmap, and similar policies in
some other Basin states, are also
driving coal plant closures. With
coal plant retirement, there is grow-
ing interest in how and whether the
plants’ water rights may become
available for purchase or realloca-
tion to other purposes, including
system benefits, environmental
uses, and instream flows. Securing
 4.8
There are a variety of creative trans-
actions that could secure water
rights for augmenting flows for fish
and recreation. For example, in west-
ern Colorado, Craig Station rights
could provide instream flows for the
Yampa River downstream of Craig
and benefit both fish species and
seasonal flows. The water may also
be used for bolstering system resil-
ience by, for example, increasing
reservoir storage. Other uses for coal
plant water rights might include
lease backs or water sharing with
agricultural and municipal
­communities.
37
There are a number of challenges
to implementing this investment
strategy. Securing financing for
purchases or leases could be difficult.
Costs will vary greatly depending on
the location of the plant, competing
buyers, the amount of water involved
in the transaction, and whether the
water is available for purchase or
lease. Additionally, the legal, proce-
dural, and approval processes for
transferring water rights to instream
flows or system use vary by state
and can be challenging to complete.
These challenges may impede acting
quickly on investments in water rights
from closing coal plants, which in
turn creates a risk that the water may
be purchased by others before these
issues could be resolved.
In order to incentivize the transfer
of water from closing coal plants
to system benefit or environmental
purposes, it may be worth pursuing
efforts to clarify outstanding legal
and policy issues and simplify and
streamline legal processes that
impact the desirability of transferring
water rights from power plant use
to system benefit or environmental
purposes. It may also be worth
pursuing some specific opportunities
with closed or retired coal plants
by engaging with the plant owners
to discuss potential water right
transfers, and with the state and
communities surrounding the plant
to design potential water trans­
actions, exchanges and/or economic
mitigation strategies.
 4.9
adapt
reduce
Resilience Benefits: Given the
regional connections between land
disturbance and management and
the hydrologic implications of dust
on snow, actions that reduce dust
generation could build adaptive
capacity to ongoing climate shifts.
If implemented at scale, reduction
in dust emissions could help protect
runoff and streamflow dynamics
that support basin water supplies.
38
REDUCING
DUST ON SNOW
(1) reducing the intensity of land-
use activities that produce dust;
(2) implementing restoration or
reclamation strategies that promote
ecosystem resilience to wind erosion;
Investment Summary: Dust (3) accounting for landscape vari-
deposition on mountain snow cover ability in planning dust-producing
in the Upper Colorado River Basin land uses and targeting restoration/
accelerates melting, shifts the timing reclamation actions to maximize
of snowmelt and runoff, impacts dust abatement; and (4) encourage
peak runoff, and reduces total yield. research and monitoring.
Key sources of dust in the Basin
appear to be from livestock grazing,
off highway vehicle use, energy
development, fire, and drier soils due
to drought and increased tempera-
tures. Federal lands appear to be a
prominent source of dust.
Dust loading has increased since
agricultural development and land
disturbances intensified in the
mid-1880s. Spring winds carry dust
from the Colorado Plateau, Sonoran
Desert, Mojave Desert, and the Great
Basin Desert, aided by the natural
erosional landscapes. A compre-
hensive dust-management strategy
could include a combination of:
 4.9
Potentially appropriate interventions
for the Basin include stabilizing
desert soils, restoring abandoned
croplands, and planting native
grasses and vegetation on degraded
rangelands. A primary goal of improv-
ing desert lands would be minimizing
wind erosion over large areas, which
would have cascading benefits to
local agriculture, air quality, and
quality of life.
39
Restoring the degraded and drought
prone arid lands primarily in Nevada,
Utah, and Arizona that generate
dust will be key in reducing dust
on snow. A top mitigation strategy
could be restoring BLM-managed
grazing lands and improving energy
development practices. Additionally,
as the Forest Service owns a decent
portion of the land in the hot spots,
and fires are key causes of dust,
forest management is also a top
mitigation strategy. As such, dust
on snow mitigation strategies tie
in with several other strategies in
this report, including Regenerative
Agriculture (for example, steward-
ship rangeland contracts may be
an option for work on federal, state,
and tribal lands if there were institu-
tional support), Forest Management,
and Natural Distributed Storage.
In the context of dust on snow,
however, large scale projects, or at a
minimum more coordination among
individual projects, will be needed.
 4.10
adapt
reduce
strengthen
Resilience Benefits: This concept
focuses on physical solutions to
reduce evaporation such as covering
reservoirs and conveyance systems
with, for example, shade balls or
solar panels. Reducing evaporation
from reservoirs and canals through-
out the Basin could improve overall
system efficiency and result in more
water supply availability, reducing
pressure on existing water supplies.
It may also help the Basin adapt to
on-going climate shifts and increase
economic resiliency by improving
or installing infrastructure now to
reduce system loss and protecting
drinking water quality (thereby also
reducing costs) and generating re­­­
newable energy over water surfaces
where appropriate.
40
COVERING
RESERVOIRS &
CANALS
Investment Summary: A significant
amount of water in the Colorado
River Basin is lost each year
through evaporation from storage
and conveyance infrastructure.
Estimating evaporation rates from
reservoirs and canals is challeng-
ing and depends on a variety of
factors. However, researchers at the
University of Colorado at Boulder
estimate that annual evaporation
losses in the Colorado River Basin
as a whole are about ten percent of
the total natural flow in the Basin.
Methods used to control evaporation
from reservoirs and other water
surfaces include physical methods
(floating covers, shadecloths, solar
photovoltaics, etc.), chemical meth-
ods (mono-­layers), and biological
methods (floating plants, wind
breakers, etc.). It is estimated that
reducing evaporation from the
major ­reservoirs and canals could
result in the following potential
savings: 200,000 AF/y from
controlling evaporation with reservoir
covers and 200,000-850,000 AF/y
from controlling evaporation on
reservoirs and major canals with
chemical covers. For example:
· Physical methods may yield
70-95% savings. Initial capital
costs are high, though maintenance
costs are lower in the longer term.
· Chemical methods could produce
20-40% savings. Capital costs are
not high, but maintenance costs
are significant, and the influence
of surface area conditions (e.g.
wave action and temperature)
significantly impacts the degree
of effectiveness.
· Biological covers can significantly
decrease evaporation, but with a
trade-off in transpiration needs of
the cover vegetation.
4.10
While the most significant potential
savings from reducing evaporation
would be associated with the
Basin’s largest reservoirs, covering
those reservoirs would also involve
the steepest costs and the largest
barriers, including environmental
impacts to birds, fish habitat, and
water quality, as well as impacts on
recreation, among other feasibility
challenges.
41
Pursuing smaller scale projects in
the Lower Basin, where tempera-
tures are higher and project scale
is more feasible, might provide
water savings and other co-benefits.
Smaller-scale municipal, community
water system, and irrigation canal
system projects are common in
the Colorado River Basin and are
eligible for several federal grant
programs. In this regard, this
concept relates to and may have
some overlap with agricultural and
municipal infrastructure efficiency
(see Upgrading Agricultural Infra-
structure & Operations and Urban
Conservation & Re-use strategies).
 5.0
Developing a comprehensive, basin-
wide, diversified financing approach
is an essential and immediate next
step in deploying a basin-wide
climate resilience effort. While
the contours and design of such a
financing approach is beyond the
scope of this report, there are a vari-
ety of federal, state, philanthropic,
and private funding programs and
mechanisms that currently provide
support for the kinds of projects
that would be integral to a climate
resilience strategy. This section
broadly summarizes those programs
and mechanisms, identified in each
summary and described in greater
detail in the Technical Appendix,
primarily focusing on existing fund-
ing opportunities related to water
and conservation.
42
SUMMARY
OF FINANCING
OPPORTUNITIES
There are several robust and signif-
icant federal programs that can be
utilized for many of the strategies
discussed in this report. U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Farm Bill conservation programs
(i.e., Environmental Quality Incen-
tives Programs, Grassland Reserve
Program, Soil Health and Income
Protection Program, Regional
Conservation Partnership Program,
and Conservation Innovation Grants,
among others) support restoration
and improvement projects for farms,
grasslands, and forests. U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation programs such as
WaterSmart and the Cooperative
Watershed Management Program
provide funding to municipalities,
utilities, Tribal governments, irriga-
tion districts, and watershed groups
for conservation and efficiency
programs. The U.S. Forest Service
and the USDA Farm Bill initiatives
provide funding through the Shared
Stewardship Strategy and Good
Neighbor Authority (respectively) for
partnerships with states, counties,
and tribes to support watershed and
forest restoration projects. Federal
programs can provide substantial
funding over longer-terms and could
provide important foundational
funding within an integrated climate
resilience effort for the Colorado
River Basin, if they were operated
in a coordinated fashion for that
purpose.
There are also multi-agency
collaborative efforts that provide
support for source water protection,
water quality, watershed and river
restoration. The Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program, a
federal program administered and
coordinated by the multi-state,
multi-agency Colorado River Basin
Salinity Forum, provides funding
for salinity control projects across
the Basin and there may be oppor-
tunities to update the approach of
that program to both reduce salinity
and address resilience. The National
Water Quality Initiative is a joint
effort between the Environmental
 5.0
Protection Agency (EPA), USDA,
and state water quality agencies to
reduce nonpoint pollution in priority
watersheds. EPA also administers
Clean Water Act Section 319 funds,
which support states and tribes
in developing and implementing
conservation and monitoring systems
that address erosion, run-off, and
river degradation. The National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation, in partner-
ship with states and philanthropic
foundations, provides support for
landscape level projects focused on
river and riparian restoration efforts.
State-based programs provide
funding to landowners, non-profits
and community organizations for
localized activities focused on forest
and watershed health restoration,
water quality improvement projects,
river and riparian restoration, and
water conservation and efficiency
efforts. Some of these programs
and ­granting agencies include: the
Wyoming Department of Environ-
mental Quality, Colorado State
Forest Service, Colorado Department
of Natural Resources, Utah Water-
shed Restoration Initiative, Arizona
Water Protection Fund, Arizona
Department of Environmental
Quality, New Mexico Environment
Department, Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection, Nevada
Division of Forestry, California
Watershed Restoration Grants, and
California Climate Investments.7
43
Philanthropic funds are also a
source of innovative and effective
financing for research and novel
implementation projects. Philan-
thropic foundations can provide
support for matching funds needed
for federal and state granting
programs and national and local
non-profits to develop and imple-
ment restoration and conservation
projects, often in partnership with
private landowners, irrigation
districts, municipal water supply
providers, academic institutions,
and other watershed-focused orga-
nizations.
Public-private partnerships have
emerged as a potential opportunity
for leveraging financing for water
conservation, watershed restoration,
and carbon resilience and seques-
tration projects that reduce risks to
business operations and markets.
Groups like Blue Forest Conserva-
tion,8 the Salt & Verde Alliance, &
Yampa River Water Fund9 leverage
multiple funding sources to protect
forests and watersheds for drinking
water and river flows.
“Green bonds” could provide a
way to fund projects with climate
resilience or other specific envi-
ronmental benefits. Green bonds
allow debt issuances by cities,
corporations, or other entities for
projects that meet certain defined
sustainability, climate, or other crite-
ria and are structured as traditional,
tax-exempt or taxable municipal
bonds. There are no uniform
metrics for which types of “green”
activities can qualify, but renewable
energy, energy efficiency, and water
infrastructure have traditionally
been the use of proceeds. While
traditionally green bond issuances
receive no credit premium from
traditional bond issuances, some
investors believe that investing in
sustainable water management can
improve the risk profile of a munic-
ipality. In these instances, it may be
possible for municipalities to layer
in investor capital, state revolving
funds, and concessionary capital in
order to make innovative projects
more affordable, or which otherwise
would be ineligible for traditional
funding. Expanding this concept
to a Joint Powers Authority Green
Bond would allow two or more
public authorities (such as local
municipal or county governments)
to work together to create a regional
financing solution to a regional
water resource challenge. Over the
past several years, green bonds have
grown from a niche market to a
nearly $100 billion per year market.
 6.0
Future water management in the
Colorado River Basin will be signifi-
cantly influenced by climate change
and the resulting challenges will be
most effectively addressed in the
longer run through strategies that
increase adaptive capacity while
also managing water scarcity, ensur-
ing healthy rivers, strengthening
economic resilience in the face of
uncertainty and change, and where
possible, contributing to climate
change mitigation. This is a depar-
ture from many water management
conversations that focus on supply
solutions, which are important
and necessary, but are themselves
insufficient to make strides towards
addressing the root driver of hydro­
logic impacts, which is climate
change.
44
CONCLUDING
INSIGHTS AND
NEXT STEPS
This analysis examined several
strategies to build resilience and
adaptation in the Basin to impacts
from both progressive and extreme
climate change. The strategies range
from the well-demonstrated (urban
and industrial conservation and
some of the more standard agricul-
tural infrastructure and operational
improvements) to the emerging
(regenerative agriculture, forest
management, natural distributed
storage, coal plant water retirement,
crop switching) to the relatively
unapplied/untested (covering reser-
voirs, reducing dust on snow).
While there are multiple paths
forward, three near-­term next steps
seem particularly ­relevant:
1. Identify and implement demon-
stration projects and shovel-ready
investments that generate place-
based and regional benefits and
build knowledge on the applicability,
scalability and co-benefits of each
investment.
2. Design a financing strategy
for a diversified and coordinated
project portfolio to support the
implementation and monitoring of
on-the-ground projects within each
of the strategies.
3. Develop an action-oriented
research scope for project imple-
mentation that builds knowledge
about the outcomes of the ten
strategies, including water supply
gains, adaptive benefits, and climate
mitigation potential.
 6.0
could be used to match or leverage
these federal and state dollars.
Development of such a coordinated
approach to water-related climate
resilience funding is particularly
timely for several reasons:

1. Congress, the federal adminis-

As on-the-ground pilot projects and
implementation experience continue
to inform how the strategies can
provide cost-effective and meaning-
ful results, developing cross-sector
partnerships and basin-wide funding
for such investments will be neces-
sary to implement the strategies
at a scale commensurate to the
challenge. While it is too early to say
precisely how such a coordinated
funding approach might be sourced
and governed, this analysis highlights
just some of the existing federal and
state programs that could be applied
in a coordinated fashion with a clear
water-related climate resilience
goal for the Colorado River Basin.
Philanthropic and private funding
tration and several Basin states are
focused on bolstering climate miti-
gation and climate resilience, and
water and watershed resilience can
and should be at the cutting edge of
those efforts (Office of the President
2021);
2. The Basin States, Tribes, and most
major water providers and users in
the Basin acknowledge the risks
associated with climate change and
are beginning to look for ways to
address that risk;
3. Over the next few years, the
operational guidelines for the River
will be renegotiated, and the effects
of climate change will be central to
that negotiation. While the guideline
negotiations are not necessarily the
forum for structuring investments
in the types of strategies discussed
in this report, the guidelines
process brings a clear focus to the
challenges facing the Basin and may
serve to motivate a more coordi-
nated approach to resilience; and

4. Most importantly, there is no time

to waste. The effects of climate
change, as manifested in a year like
2020, are here now. Many of the
resilience strategies will take time
to be scaled-up and produce results
across the Basin’s watersheds.

45
 6.0
Opportunities to Pursue
Resilience Strategies for the
­Colorado River Basin
Forest Management & Restoration:
Support the advancement of science
to improve understanding of where
and how forest management can
increase snowpack retention,
benefit watershed resilience and
provide other benefits. Continue
exploration of and support for forest
management efforts that test new
financing mechanisms and/or seek
to resolve jurisdictional issues and
operate at scale.
Natural Distributed Storage:
Explore large-scale demonstra-
tions of natural distributed storage
approaches in key watersheds,
including strong monitoring proto-
cols. Engage with policymakers to
clarify funding opportunities for
natural distributed storage projects.
Regenerative Agriculture: Develop
a coordinated strategy with federal,
state, and tribal government
agencies to promote regenerative
agriculture demonstrations and
research. Expand support that
connects interested producers to
technical and financial resources for
scaling up regenerative practices.
Help conventional finance sources
find flexibility to support regenera-
tive practices by willing producers.
46
Upgrading Agricultural
­Infrastructure & Operations:
Expand support for development
of comprehensive, collaborative
watershed plans that focus on
multi-benefit agricultural infrastruc-
ture and operational improvements.
Inventory and prioritize upgrades
in key watersheds. Explore more
innovative financing options for
multi-benefit upgrades.
Cropping Alternatives & New
Market Pathways: Provide
incentives, technical support,
and catalytic financing for willing
producers to explore new crops and
to help develop marketing pathways.
Continue and build upon current
cropping alternative endeavors,
university research, and other efforts
to develop lower water use crops.
Urban Conservation & Re-Use:
Continue to emphasize need for
urban conservation and support
municipal efforts to do so via
financing, rate structures and
other measures.
Industrial Conservation & Re-Use:
Engage with water intensive indus-
tries early in building planning and
design to promote more efficient
systems. Implement demonstrations
with willing partners. Explore
tax incentives or other financial
mechanisms to promote industrial
conservation and reuse.
Coal Plant Retirement Water:
Explore legal and policy aspects
of dedicated retired coal plant
water rights to system resilience,
environmental benefit or other
uses. Engage with plant owners,
communities and other water users
to explore possible uses and trans-
actions for water rights associated
with closed or retiring coal plants.
Reducing Dust on Snow: Develop a
public lands management strategy
that helps reduce dust generation in
key areas that are linked to dust on
snow. Link private lands manage-
ment and regenerative practices
with priority areas for reducing dust
on snow.
Covering Reservoirs & Canals:
Develop smaller scale evaporation
pilots, particularly in the Lower
Basin. Explore opportunities for
underground vs. surface storage.

American Rivers. n.d. “Climate Change Is
Water Change.” We Are Rivers. Accessed
December 5, 2020. https://​www​
.americanrivers​.org​/2019​/10​/climate​
-change​-is​-water​-change/.
Barbero, R., J. T. Abatzoglou, N. K. Larkin,
C. A. Kolden, and B. Stocks. 2015.
“Climate Change Presents Increased
Potential for Very Large Fires in the
Contiguous United States.” International
Journal of Wildland Fire 24 (7): 892.
https://​doi​.org​/10​.1071​/WF15083.
Bennet, Michael. 2021. “Senator Bennet
Western Climate Resilience Roundtable.”
Bureau of Reclamation. 2012. “Colorado
River Basin Water Supply and Demand
Study: Study Report.” U.S. Department
of the Interior.
———. 2015a. “Colorado River Basin Stake­
holders Moving Forward to Address
Challenges Identified in the Colorado
River Basin Water Supply and Demand
Study: Phase 1 Report.” U.S. Department
of the Interior.
———. 2015b. “Colorado River Basin Stake­
holders Moving Forward to Address
Challenges Identified in the Colorado
River Basin Water Supply and Demand
Study: Phase 1 Report: Executive
Summary.” U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Castle, Stephanie L., Brian F. Thomas,
John T. Reager, Matthew Rodell, Sean C.
Swenson, and James S. Famiglietti. 2014.
“Groundwater Depletion during Drought
Threatens Future Water Security of the
Colorado River Basin: GROUNDWATER
LOSS IN COLORADO RIVER BASIN.”
Geophysical Research Letters 41 (16):
5904–11. https://​doi​.org​/10​.1002​
/2014GL061055.
Colorado River Research Group.
2018. “When Is Drought Not a
Drought? Drought, Aridification,
47
CITATIONS
and the ‘New Normal.’” https://​www​
.coloradoriverresearchgroup​.org​/uploads​
/4​/2​/3​/6​/42362959​/crrg​_aridity​_report​
.pdf.
Cook, B. I., and R. Seager. 2013. “The
Response of the North American
Monsoon to Increased Greenhouse Gas
Forcing: NA MONSOON AND GHG
WARMING.” Journal of Geophysical
Research: Atmospheres 118 (4): 1690–99.
https://​doi​.org​/10​.1002​/jgrd​.50111.
Davenport, Coral, and Jeanna Smialek.
2020. “Federal Report Warns of Financial
Havoc From Climate Change.” New York
Times, September 8, 2020.
Fargione, Joseph E., Steven Bassett,
Timothy Boucher, Scott D. Bridgham,
Richard T. Conant, Susan C. Cook-­Patton,
Peter W. Ellis, et al. 2018. “Natural
Climate Solutions for the United States.”
Science Advances 4 (11): eaat1869.
https://​doi​.org​/10​.1126​/sciadv​.aat1869.
Field, Christopher B., Vicente R. Barros,
and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, eds. 2014. Climate Change 2014:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability:
Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Frisvold, George B. 2016. “Water, Agricul-
ture, and Drought in the West Under
Changing Climate and Policy Regimes.”
Natural Resources Journal 55: 37.
Gamble, J. L., J. Balbus, M. Berger, K.
Bouye, V. Campbell, K. Chief, K. Conlon,
et al. 2016. “The Impacts of Climate
Change on Human Health in the United
States: A Scientific Assessment, Ch. 9:
Populations of Concern.” The Impacts of
Climate Change on Human Health in the
United States: A Scientific Assessment.
U.S. Global Change Research Program,
Washington, DC. node/16/index.html.
Harpold, Adrian A., and Noah P. Molotch.
2015. “Sensitivity of Soil Water Avail-
ability to Changing Snowmelt Timing in
the Western U.S.” Geophysical Research
Letters 42 (19): 8011–20. https://​doi​.org​
/10​.1002​/2015GL065855.
Harris, Cynthia R. 2020. “Disparity, Disease,
and Drinking Water: COVID-19 and
Safe Drinking Water Access in Indian
Country.” Environmental Law Institute:
Vibrant Environment (blog). June 3, 2020.
https://​www​.eli​.org​/vibrant​-environment​
-blog​/disparity​-disease​-and​-drinking​
-water​-covid​-19​-and​-safe​-drinking​-water​
-access​-indian​-country.
Hauer, Mathew E. 2017. “Migration Induced
by Sea-Level Rise Could Reshape the US
Population Landscape.” Nature Climate
Change 7 (5): 321–25. https://​doi​.org​/10​
.1038​/nclimate3271.
IPCC. 2014. “Summary for Policymakers.”
Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adapta-
tion, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and
Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Work-
ing Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and
New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Knowles, John F., Adrian A. Harpold, Rory
Cowie, Morgan Zeliff, Holly R. Barnard,
Sean P. Burns, Peter D. Blanken, Jennifer
F. Morse, and Mark W. Williams. 2015.
“The Relative Contributions of Alpine
and Subalpine Ecosystems to the Water
Balance of a Mountainous, Headwater
Catchment.” Hydrological Processes 29
(22): 4794–4808. https://​doi​.org​/10​.1002​
/hyp​.10526.
Kuhn, Eric, and John Fleck. 2019. Science
Be Dammed: How Ignoring Inconvenient
Science Drained the Colorado River.
Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona
Press.
 6.0
Lall, U., T. Johnson, P. Colohan, A. Aghakour­­
chak, C. Brown, G. McCabe, R. Pulwarty,
and A. Sankarasubramanian. 2018.
“Water.” In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation
in the United States: Fourth National
Climate Assessment, Volume II, 145–73.
U.S. Global Change Research Program:
Washington DC, USA. https://​nca2018​
.globalchange​.gov​/chapter​/water.
Lempert, Robert, Jeffrey Arnold, Roger
Pulwarty, Kate Gordon, Katherine Greig,
C Hawkins Hoffman, D Sands, and
C Werrell. 2018. “Reducing Risks Through
Adaptation Actions.” In Impacts, Risks,
and Adaptation in the United States:
Fourth National Climate Assessment,
Volume II, 1309–45. U.S. Global Change
Research Program: Washington DC, USA.
https://​nca2018​.globalchange​.gov​/chapter​
/adaptation.
Li, Dongyue, Melissa L. Wrzesien, Michael
Durand, Jennifer Adam, and Dennis P.
Lettenmaier. 2017. “How Much Runoff
Originates as Snow in the Western United
States, and How Will That Change in the
Future?: Western U.S. Snowmelt-Derived
Runoff.” Geophysical Research Letters
44 (12): 6163–72. https://​doi​.org​/10​.1002​
/2017GL073551.
Liu, Yongqiang, Scott L. Goodrick, and John
A. Stanturf. 2013. “Future U.S. Wildfire
Potential Trends Projected Using a
Dynamically Downscaled Climate Change
Scenario.” Forest Ecology and Manage-
ment 294 (April): 120–35. https://​doi​.org​
/10​.1016​/j​.foreco​.2012​.06​.049.
Liu, Yongqiang, John Stanturf, and Scott
Goodrick. 2010. “Trends in Global Wildfire
Potential in a Changing Climate.” Forest
Ecology and Management 259 (4): 685–97.
https://​doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.foreco​.2009​.09​
.002.
Livingston, Ian, and Andrew Freedman.
2020. “Phoenix Breaks Record for Its
Hottest Month, with 16 Nights That
Stayed at or above 90 Degrees.” Wash-
ington Post, August 1, 2020. https://​www​
.washingtonpost​.com​/weather​/2020​/07​
/30​/phoenix​-hottest​-month​-july/.
Lustgarten, Abrahm. 2020. “How Climate
Migration Will Reshape America.” New
York Times, September 15, 2020.
Machemer, Theresa. 2020. “How the U.S.
Got Caught Under a ‘Heat Dome.’” Smith-
sonian Magazine. July 13, 2020. https://​
www​.smithsonianmag​.com​/smart​-news​
48
/how​-us​-got​-caught​-under​-heat​-dome​
-180975294/.
Martinich, Jeremy, Benjamin DeAngelo,
Delavane Diaz, Brenda Ekwurzel, Guido
Franco, Carla Frisch, James McFarland,
and Brian O’Neill. 2018. “Reducing
Risks Through Emissions Mitigation.”
In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the
United States: Fourth National Climate
Assessment, Volume II, 1346–86. U.S.
Global Change Research Program:
Washington DC, USA. https://​nca2018​
.globalchange​.gov​/chapter​/mitigation.
McCabe, Gregory J., David M. Wolock,
Gregory T. Pederson, Connie A. Wood-
house, and Stephanie McAfee. 2017.
“Evidence That Recent Warming Is
Reducing Upper Colorado River Flows.”
Earth Interactions 21 (10): 1–14. https://​
doi​.org​/10​.1175​/EI​-D​-17​-0007​.1.
Mote, Philip W., Sihan Li, Dennis P.
Lettenmaier, Mu Xiao, and Ruth Engel.
2018. “Dramatic Declines in Snowpack
in the Western US.” Npj Climate and
Atmospheric Science 1 (1): 2. https://​doi​
.org​/10​.1038​/s41612​-018​-0012​-1.
Mufson, Steven. 2020. “U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Set to Drop to Lowest
Level in Three Decades.” Washington
Post, November 19, 2020, sec.
Climate and Environment. https://​
www​.washingtonpost​.com​/climate​
-environment​/2020​/11​/19​/us​-emissions​
-climate​-bloombergnef/.
National Congress of American Indians.
2019. “National Congress of American
Indians Climate Action Task Force.”
https://​www​.ncai​.org​/initiatives​
/partnerships​-initiatives​/NCAI​_Climate​
_Action​_Task​_Force​_​-​_Mission​_and​
_Functions​_9​-30​-19​.pdf.
National Weather Service. 2020. “2018
Climate Year in Review.” National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration. November 2020. https://​www​
.weather​.gov​/psr​/Year​_in​_Review​_2018.
NCAI. n.d. “National Congress of American
Indians.” Climate Action Task Force.
Accessed January 29, 2021. https://​
www​.ncai​.org​/initiatives​/partnerships​
-initiatives​/climate​-action​-task​-force.
Office of the President. 2021. “Office of
President Joseph R. Biden, Executive
Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis
at Home and Abroad.” https://​www​
.whitehouse​.gov​/briefing​-room​
/presidential​-actions​/2021​/01​/27​
/executive​-order​-on​-tackling​-the​-climate​
-crisis​-at​-home​-and​-abroad/.
Oreskes, Naomi, and Nicholas Stern. 2019.
“Climate Change Will Cost Us Even
More Than We Think.” New York Times,
October 23, 2019.
Reidmiller, David R., Christopher W. Avery,
David R. Easterling, Kenneth E. Kunkel,
Kristin L.M. Lewis, Thomas K. Maycock,
and Brooke C. Stewart. 2018. “Impacts,
Risks, and Adaptation in the United
States: The Fourth National Climate
Assessment, Volume II.” U.S. Global
Change Research Program. https://​doi​
.org​/10​.7930​/NCA4​.2018.
Sheppard, Paul R, Andrew C Comrie, Gd
Packin, K Angersbach, and Mk Hughes.
2002. “The Climate of the US South-
west.” Climate Research 21: 219–38.
https://​doi​.org​/10​.3354​/cr021219.
Snider, Annie. 2020. “The Rancher Trying
to Solve the West’s Water Crisis.”
Politico, December 4, 2020, sec. The
Friday Cover. https://​www​.politico​.com​
/news​/magazine​/2020​/12​/04​/rancher​
-colorado​-river​-climate​-west​-water​-crisis​
-341705.
Ten Tribes Partnership. 2018. “Colorado
River Basin Ten Tribes Partnership Tribal
Water Study.” US Bureau of Reclamation.
Thiel, Aaron. 2013. “Climate Change
Impacts on Agriculture in the Colorado
River Basin.” University of Wisconsin
Milwaukee: Center for Water Policy.
https://​uwm​.edu​/centerforwaterpolicy​
/wp​-content​/uploads​/sites​/170​/2013​/10​
/Colorado​_Agriculture​_Final​.pdf.
Tillman, F.D., S. Gangpadhyay, and T. Pruitt.
2020. “Trends in Recent Historical and
Projected Climate Data for the Colorado
River Basin and Potential Effects on
Groundwater Availability.” U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2020–5107. https://​doi​.org​/10​
.3133​/sir20205107.
Tom, Gloria, Carolynn Begay, and Raylene
Yazzie. 2018. “Climate Adaptation
Plan for the Navajo Nation.” Navajo
Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife.
https://​www​.nndfw​.org​/docs​/Climate​
%20Change​%20Adaptation​%20Plan​.pdf.
Truettner, Charles, Michael D. Dettinger,
Emanuele Ziaco, and Franco Biondi.
2019. “Seasonal Analysis of the 2011–
2017 North American Monsoon near
 Its Northwest Boundary.” Atmosphere
10 (7): 420. https://​doi​.org​/10​.3390​
/atmos10070420.
Udall, Bradley, and Jonathan Overpeck.
2017. “The Twenty-First Century Colo-
rado River Hot Drought and Implications
for the Future: Colorado River Flow
Loss.” Water Resources Research 53
(3): 2404–18. https://​doi​.org​/10​.1002​
/2016WR019638.
Western Water Assessment. 2020. “Inter-
mountain West Climate Dashboard.”
49
November 2020. https://​wwa​.colorado​
.edu​/climate​/dashboard​.html​#briefings.
Williams, A. Park, Edward R. Cook, Jason
E. Smerdon, Benjamin I. Cook, John
T. Abatzoglou, Kasey Bolles, Seung
H. Baek, Andrew M. Badger, and Ben
Livneh. 2020. “Large Contribution from
Anthropogenic Warming to an Emerging
North American Megadrought.” Science
368 (6488): 314–18. https://​doi​.org​/10​
.1126​/science​.aaz9600.
Xiao, Mu, Bradley Udall, and Dennis P.
Lettenmaier. 2018. “On the Causes of
Declining Colorado River Streamflows.”
Water Resources Research 54 (9):
6739–56. https://​doi​.org​/10​.1029​
/2018WR023153.
Xu, Chi, Timothy A. Kohler, Timothy M.
Lenton, Jens-Christian Svenning, and
Marten Scheffer. 2020. “Future of the
Human Climate Niche.” Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 117
(21): 11350–55. https://​doi​.org​/10​.1073​
/pnas​.1910114117.
 NOTES
1. Several of these strategies are
discussed and evaluated in the U.S.
Bureau of Recla­­­­­­mation’s recent report
looking at the effectiveness of the 2007
Interim Operating Guidelines for Lakes
Powell and Mead (https://​www​.usbr​.gov​
/ColoradoRiverBasin/).
2. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Upper
Colorado River Basin Operations, available
at: https://​www​.usbr​.gov​/uc​/water​/crsp​/cs​
/gcd​.html
3. (American Rivers Podcast and Quote
from Brad Udall, October 8, 2019. Available
at: https://​www​.americanrivers​.org​/2019​/10​
/climate​-change​-is​-water​-change)
4. For data on climate extremes by region or
zip code see https://​www​.climate​.gov​/maps​
-data​/dataset​/us​-climate​-extremes​-index​
-graph​-or​-map.
5. U.S. Census Bureau - https://​www​.census​
.gov​/quickfacts​/maricopacountyarizona
July 2021
Citation: Martin & McCoy and Culp & Kelly LLP. (2021). Ten Strategies for Climate Resilience
in the Colorado River Basin. Available at www.tenstrategies.net.
50
6. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted
the stark disparity in health and economic
consequences for minority and Indigenous
communities. Navajo Nation has been
significantly affected by the pandemic,
exacerbated by issues related to access to
clean and reliable water supplies. (Harris
2020)
7. A recent federal legislative proposal from
U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, developed
in concert with various Colorado-based
interests, proposes allocating $ 60 billion
to a grant program and coordinated federal
funding to support such climate resilience
strategies in the western U.S., including
many of the strategies described in this
report. See, https://​www​.bennet​.senate​.gov​
/public​/index​.cfm​/2020​/12​/bennet​-unveils​
-bill​-to​-dramatically​-scale​-up​-forest​-and​
-watershed​-restoration​-across​-the​-west.
8. See: www​.blueforestconservation​.com
9. See: https://​www​.yampariverfund​.org